Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 28064/95

by Henry Krog PEDERSEN

against Denmark

The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting

in private on 10 September 1997, the following members being present:

Mrs. G.H. THUNE, President

MM. J.-C. GEUS

A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

J.-C. SOYER

H. DANELIUS

F. MARTINEZ

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

J. MUCHA

D. SVÁBY

E. BIELIUNAS

E.A. ALKEMA

A. ARABADJIEV

Ms. M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 19 March 1995 by

Henry Krog Pedersen against Denmark and registered on 31 July 1995

under file No. 28064/95;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a Danish citizen born in 1918. He resides in

Kollund, Denmark.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be

summarised as follows.

I

On 5 October 1988 and subsequently on 22 November 1988 the

applicant instituted civil defamation proceedings in the Aabenraa City

Court (byretten) against several journalists and the chief editors of

several newspapers as well as a private association. The applicant

maintained that the defendants had, on various occasions, referred to

him as a Nazi or otherwise made statements which connected him with

Nazi activities or propaganda.

As the journalists and newspapers as well as the association in

question resided, or had their business addresses, in different parts

of the country the Aabenraa City Court decided on 21 March 1989 to

refer the case to the competent city courts, i.e. to the city courts

of Gråsten, Sæby, Copenhagen and Randers. A part of the case remained,

however, in Aabenraa. As far as the proceedings in the Aabenraa City

Court are concerned no further information has been submitted.

II

The case against the private association was examined by the

Gråsten City Court. By decision of 2 April 1991 the Court dismissed the

case as the applicant had failed to comply with an order to present his

case through a lawyer. On 25 October 1995 the applicant wrote to the

Ministry of Justice and requested that the case be re-opened since the

City Court judge had, in his opinion, acted unlawfully. On

14 November 1995 the applicant was informed that the Ministry had no

competence to intervene in the matter.

III

It appears that the City Court of Sæby pronounced judgment in the

case, as referred to it, on 3 September 1990. Whereas the outcome of

the case remains unknown to the Commission it furthermore appears that

neither the applicant nor the defendant appealed against the judgment.

IV

As far as the proceedings in the Copenhagen City Court are

concerned it appears that several court sessions took place. Eventually

the Court dismissed the case on 21 June 1994 since the applicant had

failed to comply with an order to present his case through a lawyer.

V

As far as the proceedings in the Randers City Court are concerned

it appears that, following the decision of the Aabenraa City Court of

21 March 1989, they commenced on 13 July 1989. These proceedings

involved a newspaper and its chief editor as well as a private

individual. Judgment was pronounced in June 1996 and the applicant

appealed, on 16 July 1996, against the judgment to the High Court of

Western Denmark (Vestre Landsret). On 14 January 1997 the High Court

fixed 27 October 1997 as the date of the hearing. Accordingly, the case

is still pending.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains, under Article 6 of the Convention, that

he has not had a fair hearing within a reasonable time in the above

proceedings.

He also complains of discrimination as he has allegedly been

denied legal aid due to his political views. He invokes in this respect

Article 14 of the Convention.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains that he did not have a fair hearing

within a reasonable time in respect of a number of court proceedings

in Denmark. He invokes Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention which as

far as relevant reads as follows:

"In the determination of his civil rights ..., everyone is

entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable

time ... ."

However, as far as the court proceedings referred to above under

I - IV are concerned, the Commission is not required to decide whether

or not the facts alleged by the applicant disclose any appearance of

a violation of this provision, as Article 26 (Art. 26) of the

Convention provides that the Commission "may only deal with the matter

... within a period of six months from the date on which the final

decision was taken".

As far as the proceedings in the Aabenraa City Court are

concerned the applicant's complaint relates to the Court's decision of

21 March 1989 to transmit parts of the case to other city courts. In

the case before the Gråsten City Court the proceedings ended on

2 April 1991, in Sæby they ended on 3 September 1990 and in Copenhagen

on 21 June 1994.

The application to the Commission was on the other hand submitted

on 19 March 1995, that is, more than six months after the dates of any

of these decisions. Furthermore, an examination of the case does not

disclose the existence of any special circumstances which might have

interrupted or suspended the running of the periods involved.

It follows that this part of the application has been introduced

out of time and must be rejected under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3)

of the Convention.

2. The applicant also complains of a lack of a fair hearing within

the meaning of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention in the defamation

proceedings which commenced in the Randers City Court on 13 July 1989

and which are at present pending before the High Court of Western

Denmark.

In respect of this complaint the Commission recalls that

according to its established case-law, in order to determine whether

Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention has been complied with,

the Commission must examine the proceedings as a whole once they have

been concluded, although it is not excluded that a particular

procedural element could be so decisive to the proceedings that the

conduct thereof should be assessed at an earlier stage (cf. No.

9938/82, Dec. 15.7.1986, D.R. 48, p. 21). In the present case the

Commission does not find it necessary to consider any particular

procedural element separately and thus finds, in the light of the fact

that the proceedings are still pending, that it is premature to

consider whether these are, as to their fairness, conducted in

conformity with Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

It follows that this part of the application is manifestly

ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.

3. The applicant also complains of the length of the above

proceedings. The Commission has examined this complaint under Article 6

para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention in so far as it secures to

everyone a right to have his case determined within a reasonable time.

In this respect the Commission recalls that the proceedings commenced

in the Randers City Court on 13 July 1989 and that they are at present

pending before the High Court of Western Denmark where a hearing has

been fixed for 27 October 1997. The Commission considers that it is not

sufficiently informed to decide on the admissibility of this complaint

and finds it necessary to obtain from the parties written observations

first.

4. Finally, the applicant complains, under Article 14 (Art. 14) of

the Convention, that he has been subjected to discrimination because

of his political views since he has been refused legal aid.

The Commission has examined this part of the application as

submitted by the applicant. It finds, however, that it does not

disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 14 (Art. 14) of the

Convention. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly

ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission

DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant's complaint

that the court proceedings which commenced in the Randers City

Court on 13 July 1989 have not been terminated within a

reasonable time,

unanimously

DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.

M.-T. SCHOEPFER G.H. THUNE

Secretary President

to the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber

Menu

PEDERSEN v. DENMARK

PEDERSEN v. DENMARK

LEXI